Originally Posted by
Arjos
Imo yours is too much a "romanized" view of an empire: for example the Pahlava found they couldn't rely too much on their hellenic subjects and sticked to their own warfare...
Persians earlier on, exploited subjects' capabilities to their fullest...
Not to mention those roman reforms, came from disastrous defeats and not due to power (well not directly), besides it's not like they revolutionized warfare, they simply adopted better ways, something all those "lesser" factions already had, but lacked either wealth or political unity...
The only reform for those factions, that I could think of, is a centralization or confederation of power, coupled with the adoption of administrative/bureaucratic apparati (but it's something that happened, but usually ended with the death of its artificer or the people just rejected, so it's something that the team has to decide whether to script both, make a choice or avoid it completely :P)...
Bottom line, reforms happened in times of crisis and not of success...
What we have in the game, is land and resources in surplus, that enables the factions to implement expensive equipment in greater numbers...
Bookmarks